What do you think of Yamato? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

BossGnome -> What do you think of Yamato? (4/4/2005 10:34:24 AM)

I actually know very little about this uber-beast of a battleship. What was it like? was it as fearful as it is supposed to be? What are some specs of the Yamato and its sister Musashi?

Was building it and musashi a mistake? When they were, in fact, built, were they well used? How could they have been better used?

Thanks!



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: What do you think of Yamato? (4/4/2005 11:01:01 AM)

Used up a lot of material and labor, burned a lot of precious fuel, accomplished little, some people say armor layout was faulty (one torp hit on Yamato in 43 caused considerable damage). Building more CVs instead means nothing without a decent pilot training program, so I'd say it would have served Japan better to built scores of DEs - but that's 20/20 hindsight, of course.

Check out http://www.combinedfleet.com/senkan.htm



Mike Scholl -> RE: What do you think of Yamato? (4/4/2005 12:27:42 PM)

LST covered it pretty well. Given Japan's limited resources almost anything else would have been a better
return on her investment. Escorts would have been a better choice, but the Japanese really didn't see the
need for them until the US subs began pointing it out. Submarines could have been more useful if the Japs
had had any reasonable doctrine for using them But they probably would have just built more "white ele-
phants" instead of a hundred useful attack boats. A couple more Shokaku's and some screening vessels
would have been a great idea if they had been willing to adopt a more rational pilot training program.

Given the choices the Japanese did make, they would probably have been better off with some additional
CA's and DD's. Those they at least had useful doctrine and tactics for making use of.



Tankerace -> RE: What do you think of Yamato? (4/4/2005 12:34:37 PM)

I think the Yamato's were over the top. Like the saying goes, "Just because we can do a thing, doesn't mean we should do that thing." While on paper good ships, an Iowa could pretty much equal her, and since the US pumper out 4 Iowas to 2 Yamatos.....

I do, however, think they make excellent fish conservatories.



Tristanjohn -> RE: What do you think of Yamato? (4/4/2005 12:44:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

I think the Yamato's were over the top. Like the saying goes, "Just because we can do a thing, doesn't mean we should do that thing." While on paper good ships, an Iowa could pretty much equal her, and since the US pumper out 4 Iowas to 2 Yamatos.....

I do, however, think they make excellent fish conservatories.


I hate to open this can of worms again . . . but one of the Iowa-class ships would have eaten her for lunch. [;)]



steveh11Matrix -> RE: What do you think of Yamato? (4/4/2005 1:51:54 PM)

Well, I could agree with you - but first, the Yamato would have had at least 2 years 'fun in the sun' - Iowa came along a little late [;)]

I believe her real contemporaries were the North Carolina class - good ships, but not quite Iowa. Not the same Radar advantage, either. Pick up your favourite simulator, and play, gentlemen...



String -> RE: What do you think of Yamato? (4/4/2005 2:03:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix

Well, I could agree with you - but first, the Yamato would have had at least 2 years 'fun in the sun' - Iowa came along a little late [;)]

I believe her real contemporaries were the North Carolina class - good ships, but not quite Iowa. Not the same Radar advantage, either. Pick up your favourite simulator, and play, gentlemen...



Teehee.. I was fooling around with the tutorial scenario in H2H a few weeks ago and by accident sent yamato and musashi unescorted vs 4 north carolinas and 5 older battleships.. They both survived the battle tho throughly beat up. Musashi was at 60+ sys with one of her turrets knocked out and yamato was at 50+ sys with most of her secondaries gone. But they did sink 2 older battleships, damaged the rest of the oldies and 2 or 3 north carolinas (can't remember) It was a daylight action [:D]



Tiornu -> RE: What do you think of Yamato? (4/4/2005 3:41:33 PM)

Building Yamato was a mistake in the sense that it grew out of a mistaken Japanese strategic policy. From a design perspective, I wouldn't call it a mistake, the I think more could have been done with the tonnage.
There wasa fundamental folly in Japan's international perspective, and as far as I know, it never even underwent a critical review. The decision was made to pursue security via military conquest. This could never have worked because the Western Powers could not be conquered. In fact, it was only the policy of conquest that caused the rivalry with the West and thus threatened Japan's security. A wiser course would have secured Japan via friendship with nations that could beat the snot out of her.
Given the fact of approaching war vs the USA, I don't think the reassignment of Yamato's 64,000 tons to other projects would have made any difference. To paraphrase Yamamoto, Japan cannot defeat America; Japan should not fight America.
As a battleship, Yamato was unsurpassed. She would be the likely victor over any rival ship, even the over-rated Iowa. Montana, on the other hand, showed what 60,000+ tons could really do.



LittleJoe -> RE: What do you think of Yamato? (4/4/2005 3:46:33 PM)

Here's an idea for a thread.

The Battleship world cup!

16 Battleships, 3 rounds, 1 winner!

Have a knockout "tree"

Have them seeded so we dont have a Yamato vs Iowa first round, then we can have someone open up the tutorial pit the two Battleships that are fighting in the same hex,and watch them duke it out.

If neiether ship sinks, the ship with the less system damage wins!.

Would be a neat idea [:D]



Monter_Trismegistos -> Iowa better than Yamato? Buhhaahahhaha :) (4/4/2005 3:50:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

I hate to open this can of worms again . . . but one of the Iowa-class ships would have eaten her for lunch. [;)]



And what about armour? Washingtons were first planned to the 35 000t limit and with 356mm guns and armour to protect them only from 356s. The main armament was changed but armour was not. South Dakotas were quite simillar to the previous ones. And Iowas were faster and up-gunned (longer barrels of 406s as I remember). They were also up-armoured? I doubt that....



Tiornu -> RE: Iowa better than Yamato? Buhhaahahhaha :) (4/4/2005 3:54:10 PM)

The big jump in protection was with the SoDaks. Iowa had only slightly better armor than SoDak, hardly worth mentioning.



Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: Iowa better than Yamato? Buhhaahahhaha :) (4/4/2005 4:06:23 PM)

My sources says about max belt armour: Washington (actually i should say N.Carolina) 305mm , S.Dakota 310mm - the difference is 5mm (a 1/5 of a inch?) It's soooo low....



Marten -> RE: Iowa better than Yamato? Buhhaahahhaha :) (4/4/2005 4:08:37 PM)

hallo friend [:D][:D][:D]



tsimmonds -> RE: Iowa better than Yamato? Buhhaahahhaha :) (4/4/2005 4:23:59 PM)

SoDak's 12.2" belt was inclined at 19 degrees vs 15 degrees for NoCar's 12" belt. Much greater effective thickness. Both belts were mounted on STS but SoDaks was 1/8" thicker. In addition SoDak's total deck armor was 1" thicker (the main deck was 1.6" thicker).

Besides this, SoDak's belt was internal while NoCar's was external; SoDak's shell plating could serve to de-cap a large portion of the shells that might hit, further improving the vertical protection. SoDak was also protected against diving shells the entire length of the box, while in NoCar armor patches were added as an afterthought to the magazine spaces only.

Significant improvements. Iowa's armor was virtually identical to SoDak.



Tiornu -> RE: Iowa better than Yamato? Buhhaahahhaha :) (4/4/2005 4:43:48 PM)

Statistics will always let you down--that is, when they're not actively pursuing your demise.
Most Japanese AP shells were designed for proofing angles of 20deg. That virtually assures that hits against the SoDak belt will exceed the shell's proofing conditions and cause serious damage to the shell, even at Guadalcanal-type ranges.
In comparing NC with SoDak, you'll also want to look at the main battery protection.



doktorblood -> RE: Iowa better than Yamato? Buhhaahahhaha :) (4/4/2005 7:19:12 PM)

I don't think it's very fair to critisize the Japanese for their decision to build these ships. They were laid down long before the war started, when Big-Gun thinking was ascendant in all the world's major naval forces.

In retrospect, yes, the rescources would have been more wisely spent on other types of ships.



Bobthehatchit -> RE: Iowa better than Yamato? Buhhaahahhaha :) (4/4/2005 7:27:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: doktorblood

I don't think it's very fair to critisize the Japanese for their decision to build these ships. They were laid down long before the war started, when Big-Gun thinking was ascendant in all the world's major naval forces.

In retrospect, yes, the rescources would have been more wisely spent on other types of ships.


Biggest mistake they made was continuing with Shinano, they should have used the materials to build more DD's De's and other escorts. Hindsight is indeed a wonderful thing.



Iridium -> RE: Iowa better than Yamato? Buhhaahahhaha :) (4/4/2005 10:08:06 PM)

Problem was that they had already built the hull of the Shinano, would you scrap it and start over?...The damage was already done, and it was too late to change much of anything.

The torp that hit the Yamato (fired by the Skate) had shown the Japanese that the welding used in the torp bulkhead was faulty and made modifications to fix the problem. At almost the same time the Musashi was hit with a torp and only took slight damage, then retired to Kure for the same upgrades and repairs that Yamato was getting. In other words I think that the torp hit on Yamato was fairly lucky.

The biggest waste was the fact that Yamato and Musashi were hardly used at all until it was already obvious that the war was going downhill for the Japanese. I'm not saying that these ships would have had a significant impact on the war but at least use the damn things...



ChezDaJez -> RE: Iowa better than Yamato? Buhhaahahhaha :) (4/4/2005 10:11:27 PM)

Here's a pretty good site showing numerous values for armor penetration at various ranges. Comparative tables are present for virtually every heavy shell and armor type by country are presented. You might find it useful, at least interesting.

http://www.geocities.com/kop_mic/

Chez



Iridium -> RE: Iowa better than Yamato? Buhhaahahhaha :) (4/4/2005 10:24:02 PM)

IIRC, the biggest problem with Japanese shells was that they were set up for plunging(underwater) hits. They also tended to pierce through the entire ship in the case of lightly armored vessels and then explode. I'll use the The Battle off Samar as an example:

0558: Force "A" opens fire at escort carriers of "Taffy 3": USS ST. LO (CVE-63), WHITE PLAINS (CVE-66), KALININ BAY (CVE-68), FANSHAW BAY (CVE-70) (F), KITKUN BAY (CVE-71) and GAMBIER BAY (CVE-73). Carriers screened by the destroyers USS HOEL (DD-533), JOHNSTON, (DD-557), HEERMANN (DD-532), destroyer escorts USS SAMUEL B. ROBERTS (DE-413), DENNIS (DE-405), RAYMOND (DE-341) and the JOHN C. BUTLER (DE-339).

Both of the YAMATO's forward turrets open fire at a distance of 20 miles. Of her six forward rifles only two are initially loaded with AP shells, the remainder with Type 3s. The YAMATO's F1M2 "Pete" spotter plane confirms that the first salvo is a hit. The carrier starts to smoke. Three six-gun salvos are fired on the same target, then the fire is shifted to the next carrier. It is concealed immediately by a smoke screen made by the American destroyers.

0606: The YAMATO continues on an easterly course, firing her 155-mm (6.1-inch) secondary guns.

0651: A charging "cruiser" emerges from behind the smoke. The YAMATO engages her from a distance of more than 10 miles and scores a hit with the first salvo. The target is seen burning before it is lost sight of.

This was the most interesting parts of it I could find, if anyone has this from another perspective other than the Yamato's log...it would give us a better idea of the damage done by the 18" shells. I just like this battle because it was BB vs CVE's + escorts...[:D]



Lord_Calidor -> RE: Iowa better than Yamato? Buhhaahahhaha :) (4/4/2005 11:39:21 PM)

I think Yamatos made perfect sense and made a good use - they poked Americans right in the eyes by having the most armored, most armed, most-everything ships in the world, and in the right moment, too. [:D]
Japan was starting to feel a bit hard pressed for material and man labour, and it's true that they could put that to more useful ships, they stroke fear wherever they went, and tied incredible amounts of US air & naval power to put them below the waves.
Maybe they knew it was a wrong move, but anyhow went away with it, "not because it's easy, but because it's hard!" (beginning of 60's race to the Moon, guys [;)] ).



crsutton -> RE: Iowa better than Yamato? Buhhaahahhaha :) (4/4/2005 11:55:23 PM)

It is all elemantary my dear Watson, as each and every one of the fast battleships was hopelessly obsolete they day they slid down the ways. Iowas were no different from the Yamatos in that respect. Only difference, is the US could afford the mistake.[;)]



Tiornu -> RE: Iowa better than Yamato? Buhhaahahhaha :) (4/5/2005 12:04:32 AM)

Thanks for directing me to my own penetration tables--hee!



ChezDaJez -> RE: Iowa better than Yamato? Buhhaahahhaha :) (4/5/2005 2:19:58 AM)

Well, what goes around, comes around.

Seriously, good work on those. They are pretty informative. Keeps the "I thinkitis" down to a manageable level.

Chez



Tiornu -> RE: Iowa better than Yamato? Buhhaahahhaha :) (4/5/2005 2:34:52 AM)

Rob Lundgren did all the hard work. I just ease his burden of accepting credit for it.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Iowa better than Yamato? Buhhaahahhaha :) (4/5/2005 3:08:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iridium

Both of the YAMATO's forward turrets open fire at a distance of 20 miles. Of her six forward rifles only two are initially loaded with AP shells, the remainder with Type 3s. The YAMATO's F1M2 "Pete" spotter plane confirms that the first salvo is a hit. The carrier starts to smoke. Three six-gun salvos are fired on the same target, then the fire is shifted to the next carrier. It is concealed immediately by a smoke screen made by the American destroyers.



Love to know where you got the information above. To the best of my knowledge, the longest range at which a hit
was ever obtained in a sea battle was just over 26,000 yards by the Warspite against an Italian BB in the Med.
The 20 miles you mention is over 35,000 yards, and would certainly have been mentioned in a lot of sources.
Especially as you claim it was made with a "ranging (1st) salvo". That would rank as incredible to say the least.
US sources generally agree the most of the damage at Samar was caused by the Japanese heavy cruisers which
closed the range rapidly. If Yamato had been plinking things at 20 miles with her first shots, it's doubtfull Taffy 3
would have survived the action.





Tiornu -> RE: Iowa better than Yamato? Buhhaahahhaha :) (4/5/2005 3:35:33 AM)

The info from Nihon Kaigun is likely correct for the Japanese records, but the aerial spotter for Yamato was apparently wa-aa-ay off. As far as I know, the first 46cm salvoes weren't even close enough to be noticed. I'm guessing the spotter saw ships making smoke and thought they were shell hits.



freeboy -> RE: Iowa better than Yamato? Buhhaahahhaha :) (4/5/2005 4:07:23 AM)

wow, I read the shells went right through the ships and never exploded and the ships where able to limp away... I wish I could remember where I read that..



Mike Scholl -> RE: Iowa better than Yamato? Buhhaahahhaha :) (4/5/2005 4:16:46 AM)

Another interesting question would be how the "Pete" was able to cruise around spotting above
6 hostile aircraft cariers..., with 12 more just to the south. I know the US bombers were making
dummy runs on the attackers when they couldn't land to get re-armed---but I'd never heard
that all of the US Hellcats in the area had run out of ammo. If that "Pete" pilot survived the
day, I'd be curious to know just how far away he was doing his "spotting" from. Just a thought.



CapAndGown -> RE: Iowa better than Yamato? Buhhaahahhaha :) (4/5/2005 4:40:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

wow, I read the shells went right through the ships and never exploded and the ships where able to limp away... I wish I could remember where I read that..


Perhaps you are thinking of one of the Iron Bottom Sound battles?



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.0625